RAM KUMAR Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE is a delay of 150 days in filing the instant revision petition. The petitioner has moved an application for condonation of delay in filing the revision petition. The petitioner has explained in Paras 2 & 3 of his application for condonation of delay : -

(2.) WE have heard the counsel for the petitioner. He reiterated the above said submissions. The counsel was very well in the knowledge of the fact that he had received the file at the end of May, 2012. He should x have filed the revision petition immediately. He should have asked his clerk to find out the file. It is surprising to note that the file remained mixed up with the newspapers for a period of four months. Such like stories can be created at any time. Consumer Protection Act is a special Act and prescribes different Law of Limitation. The parties are required to follow the law strictly. Counsel for the petitioner did not make any efforts to reconstruct the file, knowing very well that the case was being delayed, inordinately. All these views find support from these authorities.

(3.) IN Balwant Singh v. Jagdish Singh and Ors., V (2010) SLT 790=III (2010) CLT 201 (SC)=(Civil Appeal No. 1166 of 2006), decided on 08.10.2010, the Hon 'ble Apex court has held that the party should show that besides acting bonafide, it had taken all possible steps within its power and control and had approached the Court without any unnecessary delay. The test is whether or not a cause is sufficient to see whether it could have been avoided by the party by the exercise of due care and attention.